First email in this FOI is from Gergis to a full list and covers (well not covers actually) the CA involvement in the pulling of the paper, its not what it says that is interesting but what it does not say.

She expects the new paper to have very similar results to the old paper.

]]>By: Skiphilhttps://climateaudit.org/2012/07/14/another-untrue-allegation-by-karoly/#comment-344010
Mon, 23 Jul 2012 06:33:36 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=16434#comment-344010I looked to see if there was any change on the ABR website. Nothing seems changed on the Karoly front (i.e., the review is invisible except for the link-free item on an interior page of “Current Contents”). Still can’t find any evidence that they actually promote the review or regard it as in any way a selling point for the current issue.

The have added a couple of new items at the top of the home page (one on a poetry contest and one on a discussion event), indicating that they have updated the site but did not find it worth adding back any info at all on the Karoly review… so strange for such an important (sic) piece.

Their search function is still defective and giving the broken ‘404’ page for ‘article 1063’… it is apparent that both hypotheses may be true: (1) ABR seems incompetent with their website, and (2) they see no interest in promoting or even recognizing the Karoly review on the home page.

Sure does not look like ABR could regard the Karoly review as anything to be proud of or anything to promote as a selling point! Does Karoly just make stuff up?

]]>By: Jeff Normanhttps://climateaudit.org/2012/07/14/another-untrue-allegation-by-karoly/#comment-343714
Fri, 20 Jul 2012 17:35:32 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=16434#comment-343714He loses less face but loses more karma and credibility.
]]>By: michaelozannehttps://climateaudit.org/2012/07/14/another-untrue-allegation-by-karoly/#comment-343675
Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:59:11 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=16434#comment-343675I’ve seen the verbal circumloqutions over at WUWT as opposing groups try to talk past each other. Having had the pleasure of sueing a mega-deathtech ex-employer, the inland revenue, and a power generation conpany. I would say that all correspondence that doesn’t contain the phraseology “complete action X by date Y or the matter will be placed before the courts, please forward the name and address of legal counsel to whom further correspondence may be addressed” or similar isn’t a “threat of legal action” its idle chit-chat.

We might speculate that Dr Karoly feels that his remarks are indefensible before a court and is therefore risk averse, but that would be idle chit-chat too.

]]>By: Skiphilhttps://climateaudit.org/2012/07/14/another-untrue-allegation-by-karoly/#comment-343562
Thu, 19 Jul 2012 18:30:07 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=16434#comment-343562One more point against Karoly’s “misinformation” claim no.2 is that right up to this moment the search function on the ABR site continues to be broken or seriously defective.

It continues to return the link to the broken ‘404’ page for ‘article 1063’ and does NOT return anything new such as a link or message showing Karoly’s review is now behind the pay wall.

Thus, any reasonable fair-minded person looking at the situation more than a week after the article vanished from the ABR home page (where all other articles are described with a photo or image plus some text and a link) could not, would not claim it is some kind of willful ‘misinformation’ to say the article has been withdrawn.

It ‘appears’ from ABR’s own home page and site search function that the article had been withdrawn. The alternative explanation is that ABR had silently slipped the article behind the pay wall while doing nothing new to inform the public or promote the article. That suggests either incompetence or some as yet inscrutable motives on the part of ABR.

I find it remarkable the Australian Book Review is only willing to advertise the existence of Karoly’s article in a small-type unlinked reference on the current-contents page, no longer giving it the same prominence as the other articles.

]]>By: Skiphilhttps://climateaudit.org/2012/07/14/another-untrue-allegation-by-karoly/#comment-343529
Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:47:31 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=16434#comment-343529My link to “Paywall” was the wrong link for what I was trying to illustrate, I accidentally posted the link to the “current contents” page above. That page does list the Karoly review.

What I was trying to say is that if one went to the pay/subscribe page directly from the home page one would not have seen anything to indicate the Karoly review existed or that it was in the current issue. The payment page does not list individual content (at the moment anyway):

Steve has confirmed that the Karoly review is in the $6 current issue. My point remains that whatever the motivation(s) that led ABR to move the article behind the paywall, it is bizarre (commercial) behavior for any publication to suddenly move an article which they think is *more* important or of special public interest almost entirely out of sight to the non-subscribing public.